My Research Challenge Re Creatio Ex Nihilo

[BNR32FAN]

Sorry.

That's a little beyond my pay grade!

Amen, I do enjoy your threads brother keep ‘em coming.

 

[Mountainmike]

Scientism is not a belief, it's an opinion, a claim. There is no such thing as scientism that is practiced, preached or prayed to.

So your opinion is noted and discarded. Such as with a lot of things you claim, it's wholeheartedly projection on your part.

Scientism is indeed a belief.
it is the centre of the materialist universe.
It is certainly given too much honour and respect, by those who fail to understand the limits.
It is treated as a false God.

From scientism comes the false but prevalent assumption that science will or even can explain all.

Yet at a basic level it explains nothing At all, even of observations it can model.
Gravity is a name for a pattern in observation of what things are normally observed to do Not what they are or why they do it., or why that pattern exists Which is the real “ explanation”

The teaching of philosophy of science is woeful.
I Understand why you reject it . Suggest you study it. The nature of reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Amen, I do enjoy your threads brother keep ‘em coming.

Why, thank you! God bless!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Scientism is indeed a belief.
it is the centre of the materialist universe.
It is certainly given too much honour and respect.

From scientism comes the false but prevalent assumption that science will or even can explain all.

Yet at a basic level it explains nothing At all.
Gravity is a name for a pattern in observation of what things are normally observed to do Not what they are or why they do it.

The teaching of philosophy of science is woeful. I Understand why you reject it Before study it.

I think you must smoke something right weird to say things like this because... wow.

Yes, science cannot explain everything, that is a fact. But science DOESN'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. Science only explains that observable. Science only deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Anyone trying to say otherwise is a conman.

And again as usual, you are just trying to show off how smart you think you are by saying things like this. No-one is impressed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Scientism is indeed a belief.
it is the centre of the materialist universe.
It is certainly given too much honour and respect, by those who fail to understand the limits.
It is treated as a false God.

From scientism comes the false but prevalent assumption that science will or even can explain all.

Yet at a basic level it explains nothing At all, even of observations it can model.
Gravity is a name for a pattern in observation of what things are normally observed to do Not what they are or why they do it., or why that pattern exists Which is the real “ explanation”

The teaching of philosophy of science is woeful.
I Understand why you reject it . Suggest you study it. The nature of reality.

Hey MountainMike haven’t seen you on in a while. How’ve you been?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why, thank you! God bless!

Same to you brother

 

[AV1611VET]

But again, this is wildly off topic and also I don't want to risk getting banned so I'll just say: I hold many American Christians in contempt and I'll leave it at that.

Just so you know, you can thank God for using your neighbors to give us the King James Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just so you know, you can thank God for using your neighbors to give us the King James Bible.

It took me a second to get why you said that, and I am dumb.

 

[AV1611VET]

It took me a second to get why you said that, and I am dumb.

???

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

???

England is next to Wales and I forgot that the location on my user bio says Wales. And it just didn't click what you said until I saw it.

 

[Mountainmike]

I think you must smoke something right weird to say things like this because... wow.

Yes, science cannot explain everything, that is a fact. But science DOESN'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. Science only explains that observable. Science only deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Anyone trying to say otherwise is a conman.

And again as usual, you are just trying to show off how smart you think you are by saying things like this. No-one is impressed.

Even “ natural “ “ supernatural” is an artificial divide : or it would be if you understood the context of science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Even “ natural “ “ supernatural” is an artificial divide : or it would be if you understood the context of science.

Show me then.

 

[Mountainmike]

Hey MountainMike haven’t seen you on in a while. How’ve you been?

Thanks for asking. Ok.
Timeout for a serious family health Issue.
Writing . Studying.
I sometimes wonder what the point is of the same old arguments with the same people!

 

[Mountainmike]

Show me then.

I’ve already said it. By “ natural” you mean “ natural explanation”

I point out that by “ natural explanation” or “ law of nature” all you mean is , “does it follow the usual pattern”. And even that is only applicable when there is a pattern. It says nothing of why the pattern exists. It cannot say whether it will always do it, has always done it. So it is not “ an explanation” at all.

empirical laws are just observations limited to the experimental data set. Axiomatic laws are a mathematical generalisation of empirical but clearly not necessarily valid outside the data Set. Why should a law always hold true?

Therefore the division of “ natural“ or “ supernatural” cause is arbitrary because a pattern is not it’s own cause.
The assumption you can discern a prime cause is false.

The word natural is better applied to whether it happened in nature or not, whatever the prime cause.

The bottom line?

If it happened, which is a test of evidence, not cause, , from prophecy to telepathy, to veridical near death experience , to inedia to so called Eucharistic miracle , it’s happened in nature so it is natural.
Whether or not it breaks a few empirical laws.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I’ve already said it. By “ natural” you mean “ natural explanation”

I point out that by “ natural explanation” or “ law of nature” all you mean is , “does it follow the usual pattern”. And even that is only applicable when there is a pattern. It says nothing of why the pattern exists. It cannot say whether it will always do it, has always done it. So it is not “ an explanation” at all.

empirical laws are just observations limited to the experimental data set. Axiomatic laws are a mathematical generalisation of empirical but clearly not necessarily valid outside the data Set.

Therefore the division of “ natural“ or “ supernatural” cause is arbitrary because a pattern is not it’s own cause.
The assumption you can discern a prime cause is false.

The word natural is better applied to whether it happened in nature or not, whatever the prime cause.

But why is it a negative for science to only stick to natural explanations? Natural is the only thing we can study, we cannot study non-natural things. We cannot study God or angels or demons or miracles. By their very nature, they are things that cannot be studied so they are excluded from science.

You claim, repeatedly, that the supernatural can be studied. Well put your money where your mouth is and show us an example of the supernatural being studied, with evidence to back it up. You'd get a Nobel Prize for sure.

 

[Mountainmike]

But why is it a negative for science to only stick to natural explanations? Natural is the only thing we can study, we cannot study non-natural things. We cannot study God or angels or demons or miracles. By their very nature, they are things that cannot be studied so they are excluded from science.

You claim, repeatedly, that the supernatural can be studied. Well put your money where your mouth is and show us an example of the supernatural being studied, with evidence to back it up. You'd get a Nobel Prize for sure.

I think you miss the point. I dispute your use of words.

I won’t dwell on it , but “ natural ” is not the clean cut word you think . There are at least ten different meanings of natural studied since the time of aquinas, and a source of endless philosophical arguments. As to what the word supernatural means, and whether it is an an antithesis of natural , is equally debatable.

You appear to refer to “ natural cause” - I dispute that dichotomy based on your classification of whether it fits the model. You cannot determine the prime cause, only whether behaviour fits a normal pattern, and only then if there IS a normal pattern, and an event repeats enough to have a pattern. Why it happens, what the prime cause is , is a matter of belief for all of us.

So a better definition of “natural“ is what is observed to happen, (whether or not it fits experimental laws or the model. ) Indeed whether it violates the model in an irredeemable way is inconsequential .
If it happens in nature it is “natural” is the only useful definition, . . The model is just a model , subject to change. It is not the universe whose observations it models , nor does the model contain all the universe does.

Example, There is sufficient and growing evidence now for veridical near death experience.

ie those who demonstrate verifiable knowledge of places , things or people they cannot have known or guessed at , which demonstrates consciousness beyond the brain. There is so much evidence now The question is why not whether.

A significant and growing number of voices in the community of neurologists , ED physicians , cardiologists ( cardiac Arrest is often the trigger, so the source of observation ) , psychologists and psychiatrists now accept the phenomenon. but It is extremely far reaching , since it questions what consciousness is ,and therefore even what LIFE is, which is no longer a chemical reaction, also life beyond death an the rest. It is the most profound question of our time,

Sooner or later science will need to accept the evidence which is already overwhelming as fact, and so it is “ natural” , whether or not it can make any sense of it in any present model.
“ supernatural” is just a subjective term.
Maybe nde never can be modelled. . But evidence trumps the model And defines what is natural.

In the days of Newton the scientific community then ridiculed those who thought of light as a wave not a particle.
It took a while but eventually even the last stragglers believed it. Life - beings - consciousness - are so much harder to study, relying on experience as evidence. Far from life being solved, We are barely at the beginning .
Even at chemical level It is only an optimist that says there is any evidence of the origin of the first cell all the way of evolution to a modern minimumcell, there is nothing but conjecture. How and where “ consciousness” adds is barely even conjecture.


The evidence for so called Eucharistic miracles is equally way beyond a threshold to deny they exist Therefire natural ( ie in nature) ( I say so called because I dispute that the cause is determinable by other than faith ) but The circumstantial evidence is strong , Science has no test for God. But it may yet have one for “ Jesus christness” )

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think you miss the point. I dispute your use of words.

And I dispute you reasoning for disagreeing with me.

You want science to include things outside of observational nature, but you can't show anything to back up why anyone should take you seriously on it. And when asked, repeatedly since I know I'm not the only one who's asked, you hem and haw over it. Ergo, there is no reason to accept anything you claim regarding science or the supernatural because you can't even back up any claim you make. One trick pony, you are.

We're done. No wonder I have you on my ignore list.

 

[Mountainmike]

And I dispute you reasoning for disagreeing with me.

You want science to include things outside of observational nature, but you can't show anything to back up why anyone should take you seriously on it. And when asked, repeatedly since I know I'm not the only one who's asked, you hem and haw over it. Ergo, there is no reason to accept anything you claim regarding science or the supernatural because you can't even back up any claim you make. One trick pony, you are.

We're done. No wonder I have you on my ignore list.

Much wiser people than you have discussed the meaning of nature and supernatural.
indeed the philosophy of phenomena and science, and what science can really tell you.
It is not the clean cut seventh grade science you think. “natural vs supernatural cause “ is a false dichotomy.

Meanwhile ( for example) I gave you a clear example of a massive and growing heap of evidence that consciousness is not confined to the brain. That has massive implications for life and origin of life, Argue with the neurologists , cardiologists, Ed doctors , psychiatrists/ psychologists who investigated and wrote papers, not me. Many of them . Read them.

Add them to the massive heap of other evidence the universe is not what materialists think.

But that like study of the philosophy of science takes study too many are unwilling to do.

Sooner or later the ostrich “ head in the sand” materialist ,” flat earth” scientism view of our universe will need forced revision. It is no longer tenable. The question is when not whether.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Much wiser people than you have discussed the meaning of nature and supernatural.
indeed the philosophy of phenomena and science, and what science can really tell you.
It is not the clean cut seventh grade science you think. “natural vs supernatural cause “ is a false dichotomy.

Meanwhile ( for example) I gave you a clear example of a massive and growing heap of evidence that consciousness is not confined to the brain. That has massive implications for life and origin of life, Argue with the neurologists , cardiologists, Ed doctors , psychiatrists/ psychologists who investigated and wrote papers, not me. Many of them . Read them.

Add them to the massive heap of other evidence the universe is not what materialists think.

But that like study of the philosophy of science takes study too many are unwilling to do.

Sooner or later the ostrich “ head in the sand” materialist ,” flat earth” scientism view of our universe will need forced revision. It is no longer tenable. The question is when not whether.

Except that you've given nothing. You've made claims, and provided not a shred of evidence for them.

You do this every time. Every time someone questions you on something, you expect them to do all the work when the onus is on you, the one who makes the claim, to back up your claims. Where is this 'massive heap of other evidence' that consciousness is not confined to the brain? Show us that evidence. Instead of talking, show us.

You've done nothing to show why the supernatural should be and can be researched other than you saying it can be and should be researched. That's not an argument, that's an opinion.

You never put up when asked for evidence and you never shut up that anyone else is wrong.

 

[Mountainmike]

Except that you've given nothing. You've made claims, and provided not a shred of evidence for them.

You do this every time. Every time someone questions you on something, you expect them to do all the work when the onus is on you, the one who makes the claim, to back up your claims. Where is this 'massive heap of other evidence' that consciousness is not confined to the brain? Show us that evidence. Instead of talking, show us.

You've done nothing to show why the supernatural should be and can be researched other than you saying it can be and should be researched. That's not an argument, that's an opinion.

You never put up when asked for evidence and you never shut up that anyone else is wrong.

Wrong Again.

last time veridical NDE were mentioned I listed 4 books which have hundreds of papers as references.
and they are just a small selection of many,

Like most of what I refer , I doubt if you even looked them up.
I cannot be bothered to repeat detail.

Try Rivas et al, van lommel, bellg as a start.
I prefer such as eg van lommels opinion To yours! Because he is qualified and studied them!


Stop writing. Start reading.

Then you might catch up/ understand.
We might then have a basis for a coversation.

Your subjective word “ supernatural “ has no meaning. If it happens in nature it’s natural. The prime cause is a matter of faith for all of us.

I research evidence , science and science philososophy.
I modelled complex physics which started to beg many questions Of “ what is” underlying “ what is observed”

You present just your opinions Of things you never research.